Skip to main content

No walk-over, Many Independents and the RM 5-million question.


This was the picture of the nomination day for the Malaysia’s 13th General Election on 20 April 2013.  Except walk-over, Singapore’s GE in 2016 is unlikely to see many independents and the 5-million question.

In Singapore, more political parties, big and small, will send their members to contest in GE2016. So, walk-over will also be a history in Singapore too.

The Malaysian general elections only manage to have no walk-over for the first time this year, a history since 1950s. Again, Malaysian oppositions are ahead of us in first denying the ruling party two-thirds majority in 2008 and now walk-over. However, there are many independents, many small parties and many multi-corner contests, one as many as 7-concerned fight. Why? Has this got to do with the 5-million question?

So, what is the 5-million question? 
[To curb defections that have been haunting the party post the 2008 general election, PKR has made it compulsory for all its candidates, at both parliamentary and state levels, to compensate the party with RM5 million should they jump to another once elected.
"After receiving the appointment letter, if any candidate withdraws before nomination (day) or jumps ship (after they have been elected), they have to compensate RM5 million to the party. (Therefore,) they have to sign an Akujanji letter," said PKR deputy secretary-general Steven Choong.]http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/227339

Oh! there are political frogs that see the opportunity and financial gain of jumping ship.  And the price to pay is 5 million ringgits. Is this the indicative price for buying over a Member of Parliament or state assembly representative? It is not bad for an investment of an election deposit of RM10000 (federal) or RM 5000 (state).  If you play the cards well and the luck is with you, you may strike a big sweep.

Who know even the deposit you may be able to find a sponsor as investor?  The investment return is huge if the indicative price of RM 5 million is correct.  Alternatively, the investment of RM 10000 or 5000 is small if you can deny the main opponents getting more votes.

Is RM 5 million a big sum of money in Malaysia?  Yes and no, depending on your background.  For the award of running the country again, what is the problem of investing RM 50 or even 100 million to buy over 10 or 20 MPs if they are for sell?

So, this 5-million question from PKR as deterrence may not look as effective as it is. When money can be used to make political gains, the situation becomes very complicated.

It is better we come back to the fundamental: political commitment and conviction. Believe in what you are fighting for not because of the money.

Singapore way
Otherwise, you have to do it the Singapore way: No more a party member, no more a MP. You participate in the election in the name of your political party. If you are no more a party member either sacked by the party or resigned from the party, you will lose your MP status. It is because you win the MP seat wearing your party colour. If you change your colour, you lose your seat.  This is the basic reason for the 2 by-elections after GE2011. 

Should we thank the PAP for amending the rules and regulations to have such a wonderful effect and killing the 5-million question?  It is not sure why the PAP wanted to do that when they were the monopoly in parliament.  Is this to make the party’s secretary-general or CEC more powerful?

In what way, can this ‘no jump ship’ law help the PAP continuing to be a dominant party? Perhaps, in the past it did help and prevent others for joining the oppositions or even (potentially) bankrupting a political party.  Just imagine if there is a political party having troubles with the Registry of Societies like the case of Democratic Action Party in Malaysia, all their elected members will lose their MP seats if the party is forced to dissolve (if this happen in Singapore).

If assuming the oppositions win the election in Malaysia by a small margin, a dissolved DAP will immediately make the BN come back to power again if they have the Singapore way. 

So, which is a better model? Singapore or Malaysia?  It has to come back the fundamental of political commitment again.       

People who stand for election must know what they are doing and what they are fighting for. They must know the political beliefs and ideology that they are campaigning and championing. No matter big parties, small parties or even independents, ask yourself why you want to stand for election and for what purpose?  

The PAP wants to be a dominant party, having majority in the parliament.  However, can they find enough committed individuals to carry out the political duties?     

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...